For All The Jural Assemblies – 44 | Legal Persons and Territorial Courts

As we learned when we first discussed the international jurisdiction of the States, there are no living people in international jurisdiction — only Lawful Persons on the land and Legal Persons on the sea.

All Persons are legal fictions, varying only in the degree of their separation from the actual world and the jurisdiction in which they operate.

Directly across the Bar from our Lawful Persons operating on the international jurisdiction of the land, are Legal Persons operating in the international jurisdiction of the sea.

The international jurisdiction of the sea, especially when it overlaps onto the land, is also known as “Territorial Jurisdiction” and the Legal Persons occupying this jurisdiction may be referred to in some old law books as “Territorials”.

Legal Persons all operate under systems of law known as Codes, Statutes, and Regulations.

All transactions and interactions are accomplished by contracts, both public and private, and those Legal Persons engaged in carrying on business in the international jurisdiction of the sea act as employees of corporations or officials representing corporations and/or the various governments chartering the corporations.

This particular jurisdiction has long been the realm of the British Monarchs who have policed and dominated it for centuries. It should not surprise us, then, that a majority of those connected to this jurisdiction follow British nomenclature and traditions, one of which is the tradition of holding offices as trusts.

A trust requires a donor, a holder or trustee, and a beneficiary. In the British system of things, the Queen acts as the donor, the recipient of her office or commission acts as the holder/trustee, and at the end of the day, the office or commission granted returns to the Queen, her heirs or successors.

The office holder in such a grantor system receives a “title” — a label designating exactly what their rank and responsibility is. This is again a reference to the office being held as a trust, where the office holder holds the liability and duty (the legal title) and the Queen holds the benefit (the equitable title).

The title “Mister” indicates that the person being addressed is a Warrant Officer in the British Merchant Marine Service. It may also be applied to a Midshipman in the Queen’s Navy. So this one title, “Mister”, can refer to someone engaged in international trade, or to a junior officer in the navy, depending on the context in which it is used.

The use of this term to address any man of legal age has become commonplace in this country, though obviously, it should not be. Misapplying it to average Americans creates the basis for legal presumptions that are inappropriate and disadvantageous to those Americans who appear to accept the title of “Mister” or “Missus” (a Mister’s wife) or “Miss” (a Mister’s spinster daughter).

The title “Esquire” indicates that the person being addressed is working as a Squire, the lowest rank of the British Nobility, from which they can aspire to become a Knight, a Lord, or even higher dignitary.

Each and every one of these titles and offices is a separate Legal Person, quite apart from the Legal Person bearing the title.

These titles are foreign to America and Americans, however, because we contracted to receive certain stipulated services from the British Government they have gradually insinuated themselves upon our shores.

Make no mistake, however, that clueless as Americans may be, our British counterparts are fully aware that when they call you “Mister” or “Missus” or “Miss” they are attaching a title to you— and along with the title go the responsibilities and duties associated with it, all owed to the Queen.

By using these titles to address you they are establishing the contractual basis of prosecuting you under maritime or admiralty law. If you call someone “Mister” and he answers to it, that is “probable cause” to assume that he is operating in a capacity subject to the Queen.

The most egregious example of this occurs when millions of Americans fill out 1040 Forms and claim under penalty of perjury that they are acting as “Withholding Agents” — that is, as Warrant Officers in the British Merchant Marine Service. These innocent people have no idea what a “Withholding Agent” is, much less the jurisdiction in which a Withholding Agent functions, but they have mistakenly acted as a Legal Person working as an unpaid volunteer of a foreign (British) government, which then obligates them to perform according to the standards of the job.

Our Forefathers were not as ignorant as we are today and saw the manner in which this application of titles to living people could be misused and how the benefits and privileges of some titles, such as “Esquire” could become the basis for conflict of interest and split loyalties, so they banned their use on our shores, but could not ban their use in the international jurisdiction of the sea.

What does all this mean for us as members of American State Jural Assemblies?

First and foremost it means that we must be able to distinguish the difference between our courts and their courts, their law and our law, their officers and our officials, their titles and our public offices.

We do not use a class system nor do we grant or use titles. Esquires are not allowed in our courts. Our courts function on self-representation aided by Lawful Counsel; this means that our Lawyers do not speak for us. We speak for ourselves with their assistance and guidance with respect to such issues as prior case law and standards of evidence.

In our courts, the only time that a lawyer is allowed to speak for anyone is when the Public Prosecutor presents a murder case in behalf of the victim or if someone has been harmed to the point that they cannot physically or mentally present their own case.

We do not have “petit juries” which use six jurors to decide cases in municipal courts. All our juries require twelve Jurors, including Grand Juries. Likewise, we maintain the effort to establish peerage as much as possible when selecting jury panels. Workmen should sit in judgement of workmen and academics should sit in judgement of academics, and so on, so as to promote a fair and insightful outcome.

We do not have Bailiffs, we have Bondsmen.

Our Justices do not swear any oath. They accept their elected Public Office as a Public Trust owed to the People of their State in front of Witnesses, but there is no talk of swearing (prohibited by the Bible-based land law) and no statements such as “so help me, God” appear in soil or land jurisdiction courts.

Though most of our Forefathers were earnest Christians, they understood that the only way to preserve religious freedom for themselves, was to preserve religious freedom for everyone. Thus, they adopted the separation of Church and State.

Even though we may have Chaplains assigned to serve our Assemblies and even though they may offer opening prayers and convocations, when the business meeting kicks in, and we begin to act for the People of our States, we understand that we are acting to the best of our ability to protect the rights and security of everyone concerned without religious, racial or political bias.

Our Justices do not decide the law or the facts of any case. That is left to the members of each jury. The role of the Justice is to provide a level playing field and to enforce the rules of evidence; once the jury has reached a decision, it is the duty of the Justice to “pronounce” the sentence for the Public Record and it is the Sheriff’s duty to execute the sentence.

Our courts are based upon Local Law (soil jurisdiction) and Public Laws (land jurisdiction) that are enrolled in the Public Record as General Assembly Session Laws. All such laws are subject to jury nullification.

If our Assemblies adopt a law that is unfair, unwieldy, or inappropriate, any jury in our system of law can nullify it and state the reasons why, whereupon it is held in abeyance as if it never existed and returned to the State General Assembly for correction or repeal. In this way the people maintain direct control over the standards of law that are being applied to them and weed out any laws that are ill-conceived or unfair.

This precious process of jury nullification also provides a natural curb on the endless proliferation of new laws poking into every corner of our lives.

Our law is simple, draconian, and based on the Ten Commandments. There has to be a specific Injured Party claiming injury to himself or to his property. There is no such thing as a “thought crime” or a “hate crime” until and unless it results in verifiable harm and then it is addressed in terms of what the actual harm is.

The law of the Legal Persons, by comparison, is endlessly complex, subtle, and based on Codes and Maxims that rule the law of contracts.

No doubt this is striking a cord with those familiar with the foreign maritime and admiralty court system of the Legal Persons functioning in Territorial (International Jurisdiction of the Sea) Jurisdiction.

Their laws are enacted instead of being enrolled and they take the form of enumerated Codes and Statutes and Regulations adopted by the Territorial United States Congress and the Territorial State of State Legislatures.

There is no end to the number of these Codes, Statutes, and Regulations that can be adopted and no process of jury nullification to weed them out, with the result that the proliferation of these private “laws” grows with cancerous ferocity and the burden and cost of enforcing them increases exponentially.

The Territorial and Admiralty Courts operated by and for the use of Legal Persons are operated by Bar Attorneys (Esquires) and presided over by Judges who act as Hired Jurist Referees and Administrators. These courts make no attempt to address the law or the facts of any case and focus instead on whether or not a contract exists, and if a duty owed under that contract was dishonored. They are all run as “Nisi Prius” Courts, that is, Contract Courts for Hire.

Legal Persons have no Natural nor Unalienable Rights so issues pertaining to claims of such rights and arguments based on constitutional guarantees do not apply to them nor enter into their courts. At most, Legal Persons may ask for “Equal Civil Rights” — which may be provided or denied upon the discretion of the Judge.

Legal Persons, unless they have a degree in law, are considered incompetent and must be “represented” by a Bar Attorney, who will speak for them both in court and privately under Power of Attorney, which basically grants him or her the right to act as your Proxy and cut deals in your behalf. Obviously, this is a position of Private Trust under contract that can be greatly abused and often is.

The form of law used by these courts is private, also. Statutes, Rules, Codes, Public Policies, Resolutions, and Regulations are not law, they are evidence of law, and each one represents a contract that Legal Persons are bound to. If you are acting as a Legal Person and operating in Territorial Jurisdiction (International Jurisdiction of the Sea) you are presumed to know and obey all such obligations and to honor all contracts.

Of course, the proliferation of 80 million such “laws” makes it impossible for anyone to know much less enforce them, and instead of providing any matrix for the pursuit of justice or order, such a system devolves into an excuse for raising revenues through fines and stealing property via arbitrary asset seizures.

You may readily recognize the Territorial Courts of the Legal Persons by their use of Statutes at the State (of State) level and use of Federal Code at the Federal level. They may also use Military Code. They often deceptively refer to this as “COMMON LAW” — as in “Military Common Law” — which is obviously not the Common Law owed to the American People and not any standard that should ever be applied to a civilian Lawful Person.

As our American State Jural Assemblies and our People’s Courts have ceased to function, more and more of our People have been misidentified as Legal Persons and held to these foreign standards of law and railroaded into these foreign courts.

The plain fact is that we don’t belong in their courts and they don’t belong in ours. Lawful Persons exist in an entirely different and separate jurisdiction apart from Legal Persons and operate under different standards and conventions, but the lack of Lawful Courts and the temptation to profit from this circumstance by guile has led to the present morass.

As we begin the long overdue process of restoring our Lawful Courts we have the option to handle conflicts and controversies via private binding arbitration and may assert our standing as Lawful People and request such arbitration whenever any complaint is brought against us in a Legal Court setting.

Private arbitration should be used as a stop-gap measure until our own courts are up and functioning again.

In all this bear in mind that our courts are not their courts and vice versa. Our laws, except for the Constitutions, do not apply to them –and their laws do not apply to us.

A large part of the work set before the State Jural Assemblies is to set up and convene your own State Court System for the Lawful People returning to the land and soil jurisdiction of your State. At first, this will be a daunting task as you struggle to sort things out and research the history of your State, but ultimately, the rewards of freedom and self-determination which follow from this work are the fruits of your labor and the fulfillment of your heritage.